@GabrielleFils-Aime My mistake I understand what you mean now. The reason that answer B is the right answer is because it doesn't strengthen the argument of the educator. The educator's argument is that the program is successful because it teaches children's parents how to be the child's "first teacher" and that's why they do well in school. answer choice B is saying well wait a second if parents have educational experience and have already taught children then the program isn't successful because the program is teaching parents how to teach children it's successful because the parents already know how to teach which would mean that the program has no purpose. It's not the program that's making these children have better scores than the average child, it's the parents with educational experience. So it doesn't strengthen the argument because it's saying that what's making a difference isn't the program it's the children's parents who have experience as educators. I hope I helped!

@GabrielleFils-Aime the argument that the educator is trying to make is that these programs, the ones who put the child's parents as the childs first educator causes said children in these experimental educational programs to perform better than average in school, i.e higher grades. Answer choice A says that not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents. Even if this is the case we can't assume that for example and I might be reaching, that these children when being taught by their parents don't listen and in turn don't absorb any of the knowledge they're being taught; so they don't perform better than average in school. Just because they don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial in a certain field. So even if these children don't enjoy being taught by their parents they could still perform better in school than those not taught by their parents. For answer choice E my interpretation is that even though some of the children who weren't part of these programs performed exceptionally well in school that has nothing to do with why the program isn't successful. Maybe those kids were super smart, maybe they studied a lot longer than everyone else, just because some people don't participate in one thing and do as well or better than the ones who did doesn't mean that we can say that the program doesn't work. If there are 100 people who got into an accident and all equally injured their legs, 75 went to physical therapy and 25 didn't and then we say that of those 75 people 50 made a recovery in 2 months and 20 of the ones who didn't made the same recovery in 2 months can we really say look, 20 who didn't go to PT made a recovery so therefore PT is useless. What about the 50 who made a recovery? just because someone got the same results without a program or help we can't say that thing is useless.

Sorry for the rambling maybe this confused you more, I hope I helped!

I'm wondering for the rule + exception framework if we have resident--->prohibited--->/purpose if our animal does serve a legitimate medical purpose so purpose then wouldn't the contrapositive be purpose--->/prohibited--->/resident? since being a resident requires the prohibition of keeping pets in their apartment wouldn't the chain just follow all the way through?

@BreanaNunez yes

@Senator94 That's awesome I respect the dedication. You have obviously put in the work and I can relate to driving your whole family and friends insane with the LSAT questions and things you've learned I genuinely hope you do well, your efforts won't betray you. Goodluck soldier!

@mango I know that you're probably long gone but B is making an absolute claim instead of the relative comparison as well as saying that people usually don't notice the appearance or behavior of others with "tend" meaning usually not, or more often than not. If in the first example students assumed that 100% of people could tell they were lying and "vastly overestimated" meant 51% of people that would be a vast overestimate but it would negate the claim that people tend not to notice since the majority do. With the last example "a small fraction could mean 1/10th" and "contrary to the students expectation" could mean that they believed 10/10th's would notice which like I said above negates the" People tend (usually, more often than not) not to notice the appearance or behavior of others."

How long have you been studying for?